On Fri, 25 January 2002, Greypins@a... wrote: > you missed the point. the point was to compare apples and oranges > and, by doing so, demonstrate how absurd it is to say one is better than the > other.
I think you missed *my* point.
> also, i doubt you are trying to say that whoever makes the most money > singing, is the best.
Absolutely that's not what I'm saying.
> i doubt anyone would pay $80 to hear a tenor sing just a tenor high C. > i believe what you meant was that you'd be more willing to pay money to > hear a good tenor than you would a good counter-tenor. to me, that's simply > a matter of preference.
That's not what I meant either. Perhaps I got hung up on the note in question. A tenor's high C is the tenor's so-called "money note". The exact same note is not even close to being a "money note" for a countertenor. I'd pay the same amount of money to hear a good countertenor as I would a good tenor - but if that particular C was as high as a countertenor could sing, I would not consider him a "good countertenor". I would *expect* that particular note to be easier in a countertenor's voice, since their singing range is a good bit higher than a tenor's.
Richard
|
| |